Comments by "Zer0" (@ForeverZer0) on "Arch Linux Is Objectively The Best Distro" video.

  1.  @boredstudent9468  Actually, not a Linux nor Arch problem. If an update, of any distro, is bricking your system and not others, it is obviously something unique to your configuration. Not learning what you did to cause it will ensure it happens again, and throwing your hands in the air and blaming the software ensures you will never learn it.
    5
  2.  @rjawiygvozd  I think it is hard to call it great, or even good, as the idea behind it is flawed from the start. It's main primary selling point is that it tests for longer and is supposedly more stable, but then it allows users to install from the AUR, which is intended for Arch and its packages that are already out of testing, causing actual instability that far exceeds anything an extra few weeks of a testing phase would accomplish. If we ignore this, you are left with what is essentially a re-branded Arch with a selection of software somebody else likes installed for you, and a GUI to downgrade the kernel, which is of course only going to cause instability. It is unironically far, far more unstable than a basic Arch install could ever be. I prefer vanilla Arch, but if I were to recommend a distro based on it, it would not be Manjaro, but something like CachyOS or Endeavor that actually do it well.
    3
  3.  @rjawiygvozd  I personally don't see the relevance of whether a delay is "random" or "curated", it is a distinction without a difference in the context of introducing instability with AUR packages. The wrong dependency version is still the wrong version, whether it is because some arbitrary time limit has not yet been reached, or because a skill group of fine artisans are honing their craft as software testers and cannot be rushed. Dismissing this as the fault of a user for using "crazy nonsense" packages based on your limited anecdotal experience doesn't make less stable for the countless times it has, and will to continue to happen. The irony I mentioned is that a practice intended to provide stability over Arch has resulted in it being more unstable than Arch. You allude to these "manual interventions" and how it saves its users from this common problem, and I would direct you attention to the Arch news site where they are listed. In all of 2024, there was a single manual intervention required, a basic chown command. How many AUR packages do you think broke exclusively for Manjaro users in the same amount of time? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? If even only for a week or so, I am confident it was an aggravation, the point being that one does not have to concern themselves with using "crazy nonsense" packages, they are free to use mesa-git if they want without fear of their distro breaking it beyond its already inherent instability.
    1
  4.  @boredstudent9468  ...and obviously some part of it was freshly not setup correctly. There is no "default" install, you obviously selected options on how it should install, so not sure what relevance "fresh" is in this context. It didn't install itself in a vacuum without your input. If it is bricking, it is likely some issue with your partitioning and/or boot-loader setup, Could even be UEFI/BIOS or GPT/MBR mismatches, but you didn't mention what specific update is causing it to happen, so no way to say. You also claimed it was an update, but now indicating it is the installation process, and not an update. If you are using grub, try systemd-boot, it is more straightforward for a single OS system, and is less prone to mis-configuration with less moving parts. You can also just use the `archinstall` utility in the ISO, it will take care of avoiding many foot-guns.
    1
  5. I just noticed you said "archfi". Arch comes with an installer script, why are you using an unmaintained script that hasn't been updated in over 2 years?
    1
  6.  @boredstudent9468  The Arch iso has always been and still is the only supported way to install. You tried to use some unsupported (and apparently broken) method of doing it and ignored every warning to the contrary, and are now choosing to blame it on the distro itself 6 years later in YT comment. Luckily we did eventually get to the bottom of it.
    1
  7. I think you misunderstand what stable/beta releases are, Arch is no way shipping beta releases in its repos. It ships *stable* releases of software, after a testing phase briefer than most other distros. The releases are the stable versions from their respective developers. If JetBrains releases the new "PyCharm 8.0", it is a stable release, and Arch will get it in the repos sooner than Debian, but they are not pushing out "PyCharm 7.9.78-08-beta". If you want that, you have to install an "Early Access" package from the AUR. The developers of software are what define stable/beta, not Arch.
    1